I hate applications in web browsers. If I had my way, I
wouldn't use the web.

Sometimes my GNOME desktop does funny things. Like once, I
logged in and nothing happened--no panel, no desktop icons.
Then I got desktop icons, but no panel.

I think that desktops should be stable. So I'll find a way
of dislodging GNOME from my startup and stick with sawfish
(we need less lisps--one size fits all).

The usual answer is to report a bug. The kicker is that the
bugs have to be reproducable. What hope is there for stable
software with this requirement? Functional programming
using formal methods of proving correctness? Code audits? I
have a better idea. I'll just draw windows and dialogue
boxes on the screen of my computer. Afterall, I only use
computers to fit in with everyone else. :)

Right now I am reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Rand. So far,
its been an entertaining read.

Reading "The Future of Ideas: the fate of the commons in a
connected world" by Lawrence Lessig. Probably has summed up
all the political problems that many in this community are
concerned about. The increasing power of copyright. The
DMCA. DeCSS. Lots of stuff like that. And he seems to be
able to express this stuff eloquently. Sometimes
dramatically but the drama is right on target.

The only problem I see is this book seems to be for people
who aren't already aware of the issues. But who, of these
people, would read the book?

He, overall, feels that the problem is that these legal
problems will stifle our culture. And I think thats not too
far from the truth.

I haven't finished the book yet, in fact, I haven't been
able read the book cover-to-cover. I just skip through it
until I see some topic I find interesting.

On the side I am having a conversation on gnu-friends where
I argue that Episode I was very weak. I even made the
statement that most Star Wars films are a step backwards
for our culture. Whoops :)

If I was smart, I would stop posting to online forums
altogether. I have this strange gift of stepping on all the
mines. I'm not trolling either since I really feel the way
I do.

Well...I'm playing with emacs again. Its not the editor
I like but its potential that fascinates me. And Lisp, by
many opinions I've read online, is the subjectively best
programminig language out there. I guess Paul Graham's
advocacy did me in. Still looking to order ANSI Common Lisp
when I get the money together.

But personally, I'd like an editor with a bit more
eyecandy.

In response to this diary thread that I seemed to have
picked up on, there is something I've been wanting to say
for a while about the what you may say is the "Linus
Torvald's philosophy" which I don't really consider a
philosophy.

One thing that has always bothered me about getting into
technology was how people involved with technology were
seen by others. Its not the perception that bothered me--
what concerned me was how much reality there was behind it.
The perception is that technologists are the pawns of
society while someone else leads the show. As someone who
has deep value for my independence and autonomy, this
bothers me.

So what do I see when investigate this "Linux" thing? I
see a movement of software lead by a large collaborative
group of hackers. And it almost seems that this movement
has a motive--a real goal.

On further inspection, it turns out there are two barely
compatible sides of this community of hackers. One side,
the Open Source Movement tries its best to be as
accomidating as possible to the needs of society. Success
is measured in popularity. The point is to legitimize
the "hacker culture" to the popular media.

The other side is called the Free Software Movement.
This is a social movement that works toward a goal--an
ideal of ethics and freedom with regards to software.

So it should be obvious which side I take seriously. And
everytime I hear a programmer say that software is only a
tool, I see someone who has accepted their position as a
tool of society. Since if their only goal with what they
create is to be well used and to amuse themselves, then
what other purpose can they serve?

And thats why I don't regard Linus Torvalds as highly as
many people do. He tells us to write software to amuse
ourselves, not for any more lofty goal. He wrote a popular
kernal and has had his face on Forbes magazine. These
things don't matter to me. And he even offends me at times
when he says to us, more or less, that us technologists
should be happy with the way things are. And if any of the
many national governments or large corporations do anything
we consider unethical or wrong, that leaves us left to
making fun of them on slashdot or on internet mailing list.
Because thats the fun thing to do. At least thats my
interpretation of some of his public comments.

Now, I don't mean any disrespect on Linus Torvalds. But
some people are so public that it is very difficult to not
have an opinion on them. This is my opinion.

I promise...I won't speak any more on this subject since
it is well used up. On other notes, I am still trying to
figure out what the various orbital elements mean. I think
I might go major in Astronomy rather than CS since it
seems to have a lighter course load. Although I consider
myself intelligent, it seems I have a difficult time
staying on task. Now I just need to find a school....

I know my diary entries are intermittent but so is my
life. Thanks to badvogato for a very questionable
certification.

On God

Really, I don't intend on arguing against the existance
of God. There are perhaps as many spoken unrational
arguments for the existance of God as there are spoken
unrational arguments against his existance. And lately, I
have concluded that little true wisdom can be percieved
from logic alone. As Spock once said "Logic is only the
beginning of wisdom, not the end." Wise man for a vulcan.

However, a conclusion on God's existance isn't needed to
wonder why people believe in God. Since there is no proof
and no real evidence for him, why do so many cherish this
belief? And that is why I said that is just one other
common dilusion that we as humans invoke. It answers many
of our philosophical wonderings--which it seems just as
much to human nature.

It seems that perhaps the most devout (if this word has
any true meaning here) atheists are materialists and can't
believe in a God since they, by definition, don't believe
in spirit. Also, it seems that many of these materialists
exist here in the hacker and technical cultures since it is
the material world that we spend so much of our time with.
And it is harder to believe in spirit when you learn of the
magic computers bring are really the products of the
material world--of electrons flowing through
semiconductors, forming logic gates which provide the basis
of further and further abstractions. In fact, it is the
materialists who most believe in artificial intelligence
(pardon the vague use of "believe") since they believe that
human intelligence can also be taken apart just as a
computer can be built.

In my last paper in English I wrote how I believed that
artificial intelligence was possible with computers and how
I thought that computers are universal machines. I no
longer hold that view. Because while some believe that the
nature of computers are numbers and the on/off nature of
Boolean values, some more thought leads me to believe that
the nature of today's computers is symbolism. Because while
in the material world digital signals rise and drop to
certain levels, it is we humans who interpret these signals
as one's and zeros. In fact, there can be no real
computation without programmers to hold within their minds
what these symbols represent. That is why we need
programmers and is why computers can't really program
themselves.

But imagine a computer capable of symbolism. It simply
boggles my mind. But I believe that intelligence requires
the ability to symbolize and therefore AI with computers
isn't possible. Not that I'm an expert or anything.

On RMS

Heh. Not trying to parrellelize "On God" with "On RMS"
or anything, BTW.

But I can't understand how people can expect someone as
fiercely individual and independent as Stallman to submit
his will to a more collective will. That is the very nature
of compromise and it is what people are asking of him.
People talk of dividing the community as a bad thing.
While, there are pros and cons--there is one release-
critical bug in the community as I see it is an unproven
theorem of "popular, therefore good". And that is why most
people here seem to be after. They want more users, they
want businesses to use the software they create. When
people speak of user interface policy--I can only think
that its the noncommercial form of marketing. Since it
seems that a nice interface is whatever interface that will
draw the most users.

Let me point at a different goal. "Whatever allows me to
do what I want to do is good." Extend this philosophy to a
community of users and developers and you get Unix and you
get Emacs. You get a flexible environment to achieve your
own goal.

The thing is that humans are not very sophisticated.
Most of us will only use a computer as a fancy typewriter,
arcade machine, or messaging device. But for the rest of us
who have sophisticated needs, we have almost everything we
need to meet them needs. This is what attracts me to free
software.

But I have to say the Stallman's ideals have been very
influential to me. The concept that software should be free
is a very challenging philosophy to understand. I am still
uncertain on its validity. If anyone wishes, I can
elaborate.

Badvogato, while it should be natural to
question why so many men and women believe in God given the
unreasonableness of presuming His existance, it turns out--
no surprise--that a belief in God has nothing to do with
logic. Rather, God is a disallusionment from reality.

Atheists should not be so quick to snicker, however, as I
believe disallutionation are the very nature of being
human. Every single religion reveals a disallusion in how
they feel connected to the universe, how they believe that
they are able to be pure and noble, that they have a
purpose, that if they are virtuous they will live forever,
and that life has a meaning. Even atheists, I believe, must
choose their own fantasy to live on whether it is that
technological achievements can bring about global
prosperity, that humans are noble, gentle creatures, or
that they can make a difference in the world by will alone.

We do the same thing all the time in smaller ways when we
root for the underdog, when we walk into a casino, and when
we believe in ourselves, and often when we decide to go to
school. When we take on political tasks, such as joining
the military, voting in an election, writing our
congressmen, or discussing politics. We believe in a
reality that doesn't quite fit into an entirely material
world. And is thus, unprovable.

As an athiest, I did not suddenly decide not to believe in
God by reason alone. It just kind of happened one day when
I questioned pure evil.

Just as I thought that advogato had few people who comment
on articles, someone writes an article on user interfaces
and everyone responds. I actually thought I was bored on the
subject of UI but the article by hp really breaks new ground
for me and I thank him for the article.

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser
code is live. It needs further work but already handles most
markup better than the original parser.